Zoning and Platting remains unhappy with PUD ordinance

With Draft 3 of CodeNEXT currently under review, the Zoning and Platting Commission voted to send a letter to the mayor and City Council concerning the code’s failure to address problems with the city’s current system of planned unit developments.

Commissioner Jim Duncan was the most outspoken about his frustrations regarding the revisions.

“I was really disappointed,” said Duncan at Tuesday’s meeting. “In (Draft 1) there was no change, and in (Draft 2) there was no change. I brought it up to staff that Draft 3 was even worse; (the PUDS were) obviously an afterthought.” He continued to say that many provisions in the PUD ordinance, like baseline entitlements, had been removed in Draft 3.

According to Duncan, the current code has not been administered in the best way, and PUDs are a good example of that in Austin. He said that while the nature of a PUD is to create a balance of benefits to public and private interests in trade for development allowances, that balance “has been so heavily weighted to the private sector in the past that the public has not benefited.” Duncan said PUDs haven’t been used in a positive way, and he cited the city’s affordability crisis and lack of parkland, among other issues, to support his claim.

“(PUDs are) being used as an escape clause to enhance entitlements,” said Duncan. “I personally love a PUD. If they’re done right, everyone can benefit, but we haven’t been doing it right in Austin, and I don’t see it happening in the code we’ve offered in CodeNEXT.”

The commission’s frustration regarding PUDs in both the current code and CodeNEXT is nothing new. A January Austin Monitor story mentions that the commission’s formal Draft 2 recommendations included a suggestion to re-configure the affordability requirements. That same story references a presentation Duncan made to the commission that highlighted other problems within the ordinance.

The initial letter included 20 recommendations from the commission, but one recommendation proved more constructive compared to the others, from Commissioner Dustin Breithaupt’s perspective. It states that “criteria for superiority should be based on measurable, objective criteria instead of subjective opinions so that everyone can understand what can be approved.” The other recommendations, Breithaupt said, weren’t measurable in the city’s ability to enforce them.

Chair Jolene Kiolbassa agreed with Breithaupt. She said measurable, objective criteria, instead of subjective opinions are “exactly what I feel is needed in the PUD ordinance, and what we’ve been grappling with.” She said the emphasis on such criteria would enable both the developers and neighborhood residents to know what’s expected.

Though the majority of the discussion focused on amendments to the PUD, or expressing frustration with it, Commissioner Sunil Lavani questioned the letter’s intent. He asked if the letter was related to the current code or if it was being given to Council to consider during its CodeNEXT discussions. Duncan responded that while he didn’t know where CodeNEXT was going, the purpose of the letter was simply to say that the PUD needed to be repaired, a comment to which Lavani did not object.

“I agree that the PUD needs to be recalibrated. It needs to be measurable, so that expectations are in line for everybody, from the developers’ side to the community,” said Lavani. “PUDs aren’t bad, and I think that lens needs to be understood.” He went on to say that larger projects need the flexibility PUDs offer.

The final version of the letter follows a less-is-more approach, eliminating the list of recommendations and instead consolidating them to state that the means of superiority should be based on measurable, objective criteria. However, this generated concern from Commissioner Ann Denkler.

“I’m afraid this letter is so simple it won’t have any meaning for Council,” said Denkler. “PUDs have been a real problem, and it hasn’t just been on the last two that we’ve considered.”

Despite her concerns, the motion to send the letter passed 8-1, with Denkler opposed and commissioners Abigail Tatkow and Yvette Flores absent.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Do you like this story?

There are so many important stories we don't get to write. As a nonprofit journalism source, every contributed dollar helps us provide you more coverage. Do your part by joining our subscribers in supporting our reporters' work.

Key Players & Topics In This Article

City of Austin Zoning and Platting Commission: The City of Austin's Zoning and Platting Commission addresses issues of land use as assigned to it by Austin's City Code. It has sovereign authority, or the right to make final decisions on certain cases.

CodeNEXT: CodeNEXT is the name given to the land development code rewrite process undertaken in the early 2010s by the City of Austin.

Planned Unit Development: A zoning classification designated by the city to allow greater flexibility for projects within its boundaries.

Related Stories

The devil (or the donut) is in the details… When it comes to zoning and platting, make no mistake that the commissioners who sit on ZAP pay attention to the details of each and every case. In fact, this was…

At the last meeting of the Zoning and Platting Commission on Jan. 29, even with a full dais the commission was unable to muster the supermajority vote needed to approve a request for a flag lot at 11603 Tedford St.Dissatisfied…

Austin Monitor

Five days a week, we bring you the news. Austin Monitor is owned by the Capital of Texas Media Foundation, which purchased the publication on Oct. 4, 2013. We stick to the facts. We strive to get it right and be fair to all; when we err we correct it fast.